[0:01]A warm welcome to this talk. Now today we're going to be looking at a new paper which shows very promising results for Iverton and Mebendazol being used together in the treatment of a wide variety of cancers. Now this is the paper here. Real world clinical outcomes of Iverton and Mebendazol in cancer patients, results from a prospective observational cohort. So in other words, this was a group looking forward. People joining the group and then data being collected prospectively as the trial goes along.
[0:39]And it's written as a full paper here we have the abstract. It's not yet been subject to full peer review, but I'm bringing it to you because it's really very interesting. And the lead author is Nick Hulcher, who is actually a friend of the channel. So the full paper is there. Now, let me just give you the uh, the main points of this and you can decide if you want to watch. So, um, that's the reference for the paper. The clinical benefit ratio. Now the clinical benefit ratio is something used particularly in evaluating cancer treatments. And it means that there's a complete response or there's um, partial response or stability of the disease. It means it's a good outcome. Anyway, the good outcomes were 84%. With a combination of Iverton and Mebendazol. Mebendazol of course, is a very similar drug to Fenbendazol. It's the human form really. Mebendazol. Mebendazol and Iverton together are giving this good result of 84%. In terms of clinical benefit ratio. So that's what this video is about. Uh 84.4% of patients did did well, which is incredible. Uh so why isn't this being widely taken up? Well, we don't have the large scale randomized controlled trials because they're largely done by pharmaceutical companies. Now, the paper does mention the fact that overall, it is estimated that annual costs of standard chemotherapyes average $111,000 per year. Guess that's about what 90,000 pounds. $111,000 per year. Now, the fact that the uh pharmaceutical companies are making so much money out of this, may have nothing to do with the fact that they don't conduct the clinical trials into Iverton and Mebendazol. Who knows? But they're facts given in the paper anyway. Now, let's look at some of the details now because um it really is quite an interesting study. So, uh drug repurposing offers a pathway to identify accessible, low-toxicity cancer therapies. This is available to anyone, this is egalitarian. Low toxicity, low cost cancer therapies. Now, um the paper says that this therapy should cost $1,000 or $2 a year as opposed to $111,000 per year for traditional chemotherapy. I'm sure I could do it for a lot less than that. one heck of a lot less than that. These drugs are generic, they're remarkably cheap. Uh before Romania joined the European Union, I used to buy a lot of Mebendazol and send it to friends and colleagues in Romania for treating worm infections. Parasitic infections. And at that time, okay, it's a while back, but I was paying 2 pounds 30 pence per 1,000 doses. That's probably the equivalent of 6 or 7 pounds, $10 per 1,000 doses. So these drugs are remarkably inexpensive, remarkably cheap. And I've got the potential to, as we'll see, treat these wide variety of cancers. Now, um Iverton and Mebendazol have demonstrated multi-target anti-cancer activities. They work in many different ways. I do see quite a few papers, uh by uh what do you call them? Fact checkers. Who say cancer is not a parasitic disease. Iverton, Mebendazol, Fenbendazol can't work. Well, this paper is aware of that. We're aware of that. This is they are not working by killing parasites. They have multiple other biochemical modes of action and the details of those are coming. So we know that they work in a wide variety of ways in the cells and tissues of the body. This paper evaluates real-world patient-reported outcomes, safety, and adherence in a cohort of cancer patients utilizing this combination protocol. And the combination was Iverton 25 milligrams, Mebendazol, um, Iverton 25 milligrams, Mebendazol 250 milligrams a day for 90 days. That was this particular protocol.
[4:49]We're not giving medical advice, just reporting what this protocol was. The methods, so it's prospective observational cohort study, 197 cancer patients, so it's a reasonable number. They were prescribed Iverton and Mebendazol off-label through telemedicine (platform by licensed U.S. healthcare providers).
[5:17]Participants received compounded oral capsules containing 25 mg Iverton and 250 mg Mebendazol. I think that's what I said before, 250 mg Mebendazol. Mebendazol, as we've said, being a very similar preparation to Fenbendazol. Data were collected via voluntary, standardized digital surveys at baseline and approximately 6-month follow-up. So these patients mostly followed up at the 6-month period. The initial cohort, 197 baseline characteristics, including cancer type and disease status, were assessed. And there's actually some really quite nice graphics in the, uh, in the paper. Here, uh, where they show, like prostate cancer was the most common, then breast cancer, then lung cancer, then colon cancer, liver cancer. And then he's all these other cancers as well, um, which in itself is really quite impressive. That this combination of Mebendazol and Iverton appears to be effective against a very, very wide range of cancers. And this means, if you think about a third world situation, for example, where where you don't have perhaps availability of specialist oncologists, junior doctors in medical assistants and senior nurses could potentially prescribe this for a wide range of cancers. Uh because the treatment would be probably, as far as we know, very similar for a wide range of cancers, which is again, very egalitarian, the sort of thing we want to we want to promote. Um, so various cancer types, a total of 122 patients completed 61.9% response rate. So that's actually not too bad. Mean age 67, about half were male and half were female. So pretty well half and half. Cancer types included. I've listed them there just for convenience so you can see them in the notes. So, um, as we've just noticed, a wide range of different cancers. Normally, of course, all these cancers would have, as I said, dramatically different, um, treatments, whereas here, it was all the same basic, uh, adjunct treatment that could, could potentially be given. Median duration since initial diagnosis, 1.2 years. 37.1% experiencing active disease progression. 6-month follow-up. Um, 31, 37.1% of the time were experienced active disease progression. So that was shown on this graphic here. So we see that at baseline, we have, uh, we have, uh, 37.1% who were actively progressing. That means the disease was metastasizing, metastasis, going to different parts of the body, spreading all over the place to the bones, the lungs, the brain, wherever it was metastasizing to. Uh, others were in a more stable situation at the time, this is when the treatment was, uh when the patient's first enrolled on the trial. Six-month follow-up, uh, pretty good, nearly 87% adhered to the treatment. Took the full 90 capsules of Iverton and Mebendazol prescription. So, um, not, um, not an intensive difficult treatment follow at all by any means. Clinical benefit ratio, as we've said, so some had complete response, some had a partial response, and some had, uh, the disease was stabilized. And again, the paper is very good, it shows this graphic of that. So we see that, uh, some patients here, the 32.8% had no evidence of disease at the time. 15.6% had known regression and 36.1% were stable. Only 15.6% have progressed. And given that cancer is a progressive disease, I consider that result to be quite remarkable, really. Normally, of course, you'd expect 100% to progress because cancer is a is by definition a progressive disease. Clinical benefit ratio, as we've said, 84.4%. Right, so, uh, 48.4% of cohort, strongest positive outcomes, regression, 15.6%. No current evidence of disease (NED), 32.8%. Disease stability, 36.1%. Only 15.6%. Of the whole cohort, of the whole cohort, were, uh, progressing, which is remarkably good, remarkably good. 87% nearly stable or improving. Now, this is very interesting, very interesting indeed. I have talked to different people on this channel, um Dr. Kenneth for example, Gustav Glish in the UK. And we've talked about the dose which would be ideal for this. And basically, of course, because the trials haven't been done, we don't know. But this study, at least, relatively small, but what this study showed is no significant dose response association was observed for cancer outcomes. And the chances of that being wrong were only uh 9%. So uh, it's 91% likely that that is a correct statement. In other words, um the lower doses, people on the lower doses were doing as well as people on the higher doses. Now the very best response was from people with two capsules a day, but it it wasn't much different. So it looks like the relatively, relatively low dose of 25 milligrams of Iverton and 250 milligrams of Mebendazol is as effective as the higher dose. At least from this study. Now, of course, people will argue with that. All I'm saying is I I don't actually know the complete answer to that, of course, no one does because the full trials haven't been done. But that's what this study showed. It's a direct quote from the study. Very interesting. No significant dose response. So, I mean, normally with a dose response, you know, it's like if if you if you give a higher dose, and you get more response. So, for example, if someone's drinking alcohol, the higher the dose of alcohol, the more they get drunk. That would be normal, but this isn't showing that. Um, so the response was pretty well the same in this study, regardless of the dose, which is very interesting indeed. Uh and should help to guide future studies. Um, but that any clear dose response gradation for efficacy. Encouraging that the lower doses may be effective. How low can we go? We don't know. But it'd be interesting to find out, wouldn't it? Side effects, pretty mild. There were a few mild side effects reported. Um, mostly gastrointestinal. But uh, 90, nearly 94% of those affected were able to, uh, carry on with their, uh, with their treatment. Um, so very well tolerated. Um, some adjusted the doses a bit, but basically very well tolerated. Concurrent conventional therapies. Now, what are other therapies were these getting? Well, of the people taking the Iverton and Mebendazol, 27.9 were on chemotherapy as well. Radiotherapy, 21.3% were on radiotherapy as well, and 19.7% had surgery during the course of the 6 months as well. And as well as that, quite a long a lot were on diet supplements, nearly half, and uh dietary modification, just over a third. Right, conclusion. The initial conclusion from this study. Um, in this prospective real-world cohort, the combination of Iverton and Mebendazol was associated with high rates of self-reported clinical benefit. With nearly half of participants reporting tumor regression or no current evidence of disease across heterogeneous populations of cancer patients. In other words, different people, different sexes, different types of cancer, all got a benefit, which is really quite remarkable, really, quite remarkable. These findings provide a compelling clinical signal that there is well-tolerated repurposed agents may offer therapeutic benefit. That's the Iverton and Mebendazol may well offer therapeutic benefit. However, as the study honestly says, observational design, reliance on self-reported outcomes and potential for selection bias, that's the people that go into the study in the first place, and uncontrolled confounding variables. These findings should be interpreted as hypothesis generating. So there's most definitely a hypothesis here. The hypothesis is that giving 25 milligrams of Iverton and 250 milligrams of Mebendazol, uh every day for 90 days, has a significant benefit to a whole range of cancers. That is easy to test. Now, of course, we're not expecting this to be done because Mebendazol and Iverton are cheap. They're inexpensive. And pharmaceutical companies are currently making uh an average of $111,000 per year per patient. Not that we're saying that's why they don't want to do it, they could be completely unrelated facts, of course.
[14:59]I don't know how do why aren't governments doing this research? Why aren't independent universities doing this research? Just because there's no money in it. Is that why it's not done? Let me know what you think. Let's close with phenomenal frustration, but at least you watched, so thank you for that.
